Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

I don't know if I can distinguish little imperfections from big imperfections. I can just identify "this is the aspect I'm working on right now" and work on that aspect. Then go on and work on another aspect...

Then continue doing that. But divide the piece into more manageable sections and keep them separate until you're closer to the recording date.

Originally Posted By: PianoStudent88

So in some sense I have to start with imperfections, and ignore some while I iron out others, and try to be on an upward spiral of improvement.

Again, start with just the notes until they're the right ones. Then articulate them the way indicated in the score. Then add dynamics as indicated. Carry on as normal but keep the sections small and isolated.

Originally Posted By: PianoStudent88

This conversation is sort of terrifying because it means that when I come to play it for the BIG recital, you will be able to hear everything wrong about how I've practiced it.

What they're going to hear is where you're at with it at the time of recording.

Work on it the same as you're used to working if it makes you feel more comfortable. But with several small sections instead of one long piece you'll have a better chance of memorising it (you can still play it from the score - there are no page turns in this piece), you'll be able to focus more clearly on each little section and you'll most likely have a better end result.

Working for six minutes on each of six isolated three or four bar sections each day (there are 18 unique measures in this piece and nine duplicates) will do more than spending forty minutes a day on 27.

You'll do better at bringing out the melody in M15 if you work on just M15 before you start reading through M11-17, memorising it or not.

And don't put the big recital on a pedestal. Just do an honest job and be proud of where you are instead of frustrated at where you want to be. You did a fine job with the Satie, you'll do a fine job with this.

This conversation is sort of terrifying because it means that when I come to play it for the BIG recital, you will be able to hear everything wrong about how I've practiced it.

You're funny, PS88 . BTW, you've mentioned a few times -- I think I recall -- that your piece is supposedly among the easiest of the bunch. Well, it sure does not sound that way to me. I haven't looked at the score closely, but it must be tougher then my other piece, Op 102 no 6.

You were asking in the The Big Recital thread about how tough of challenge the various selections were for people. I believe I stated mine (at the time, op 102 no 6) was easy. And it is. A walk in park really compared to this one. No 1 on the other hand I would be more inclined to associate to a stroll up Mount Everest, and could indeed be the toughest I have ever learned. It sure seems to be starting out that way. I spent nearly an hour today, on one bar.

My goodness, I have my hands full with this one.

Originally Posted By: zrtf90

The only point I would dispute is that Theme 1 starts again as a segue from M19. The melody is from M2 but the harmony is a little different and it has the extension from M9.

The melody from M9 rises by a second in M7 from M3/M20 and M8 rises a third from M4/M21.

Theme 2 is up a fourth in M25 from M12 and the melody begins its descent to the coda a measure early.

OK, I will go back to make sure all clear on this. I still need to get it all more secure in my brain, anyway, as suggested. So, this will be a good exercise.

Richard, thank you for the encouragement. I will add that to my thinking. I'm already thinking "slower". Now I will also add "smaller sections".

Greener, Magrath's Guide to Intermediate and Teaching Literature suggests that mine is among the easiest. I will have a look through and see what I think of any of the others, and why I myself think that this is easiest (out of a set of 48 hard pieces). One thing that makes it easier is the slow tempo. For example Op. 38 No. 4 is similar in style to my Op. 30 No. 3, but that one is Andante and mine is Adagio.

(Nearly an) hour on one measure suggests there's room for improvement in your practise method. It would preclude my working on many other pieces.

I decided to time myself, I don't normally.

I picked Measure 20 at random. I chose to include the last chord of M19.

I learnt (memorised) the LH quite quickly, less than half a minute.

I learnt the RH in about two minutes including coming up with a suitable rhythmic sentence.

I practised the first half of the measure, RH only, to 'I'm coming to get you' (I'm not the world's best lyricist). I used to use fruits for the rhythm, plum, plum for crotchets, cherry, cherry for quavers, apricot for triplets and huckleberry for semis. Now I just make up dumb (but suitably metred) sentences. I spent a couple of minutes on the bar, half a dozen reps plus thinking time between each to play it flawlessly in my head and also to consider the crescendo.

The second half I felt was easy enough not to need HS practise.

I started working HT to the line 'I'm going to the seaside, leaving in the morning' taking about two to four seconds per sixteenth note, I wasn't keeping time particulary (that's the beauty of the rhythmic sentence) just making sure I got the right notes on the right word. I used the score for the first few runs through but was free of it quite quickly. Once it clicked I got it up to or close to tempo in about ten minutes - faster than I'd play the menacing opening but slower than I'd play the climb down from M30. I spent about fifteen minutes total on this measure and a little over ten minutes on M23 directly underneath it on the page. I used 'eating in a snazzy little restaurant in London' to get the rhythm. I was done inside half an hour.

I'd already got up to M6 when I investigated the piece back in November so I had a bit of a head start.

Where should we start with this? I'd begin with what I think is the hardest section having read through the piece picking out just the melody in RH, M11.3.

Now the LH is a descent in quarter notes from E to F# on all the black keys except B. Now how would we go about memorising this? It's a tough one! I think just basic repetition might help.

Let's look at the RH. We start with G# and B over the octave E in LH. Hmm, how can we associate G# and B with E?

The melody steps up in RH from B to E using fingers 2, 3, 4 and 5. The second chord uses the lowest note in that phrase, F#, so 1 must be used for that and the chord thus uses 1-2-3. We must practise the move from the first to the second chord. The rest seems straightforward. Let's work on just that handful. Four chords in RH, four in LH, slightly offset. Take plenty of time to think where each finger's going to go before you make the change.

At the end of each repetition, or more pertinently before each subsequent repetition, play it mentally, consider how you want it to sound and play the section with your hands in your lap. Then play it slow enough to guarantee the right notes and consider how you did at the end. Do about seven to ten reps each day, thinking between each one, and getting them right. Then let sleep do its work. When you're comfortable with it, it may be a few minutes or a few days, look at the next section.

The second half of the phrase continues the octaves descending in LH. It shouldn't take long to get these into your head.

Apart from the last note every chord has 1-2 on C# and E leaving 3, 4 and 5 for the melody. Play and sing, 'we're going home tomorrow'. Add the LH when you're ready.

When you're ready to join these two sections add the crescendo at the same time. You'll need to decide how loud you're going to get, and how quickly, but you have a sforzando on the next chord. You can do this before you go on or when you've done all the other sections but do it before you start practising these bars every day. Consider that if you're not using the right dynamics, then you're practising the wrong ones!

If you put them together before the new year you're ahead of the schedule I gave you earlier. Practise this bit each day at the start of your practise session (or before you start on the rest of this piece). When you can play it from memory for five consecutive days before you reach for the score you can start practising it at the weekend only.

(Nearly an) hour on one measure suggests there's room for improvement in your practise method. It would preclude my working on many other pieces....How did you spend your (nearly an) hour?

I suppose an hour was a bit of an exaggeration. I have a tendency to do that from time to time. The frustration is always in not getting it as quickly as I would like.

Suffice it to say, I did not spend my time as productively as you did. I was trying to take on a bit in the new section (I changed M14-M19 to start at M12.) M12 was tricky for me and seemed like a whole new pattern to the beginning. I then had a run along to M15 and these came a bit faster.

I have at least some familiarity with this next section now, which is a good start. I'm back now working on M1-M5 again, and pleased to report it is coming together (finally) quite nicely. I think I will be able to manage OK, with this piece afterall.

However, funny you mention. I am not keeping up as well now, with all my other pieces I am still trying to develop. More hours are needed in the day. Or, if I could only get rid of my day job.

I like the lyrical analogy twist and will give this a try.

Silly question, I get RH, LH. I don't get HT, HS. I see it all the time and thought it would eventually be obvious. But, still is not .

Richard, thank you for this detailed look inside "how to memorize.". I'm going to comment point by point because I think it's interesting to compare how our minds work.

Originally Posted By: zrtf90

Where should we start with this? I'd begin with what I think is the hardest section having read through the piece picking out just the melody in RH, M11.3.

Interesting. To me the hardest section is mm. 14-17 (perhaps because neither of my sources gives much fingering here, so it took me a while to work out fingering), and the RH chord transition from m. 21 to m. 22.

Quote:

Now the LH is a descent in quarter notes from E to F# on all the black keys except B. Now how would we go about memorising this? It's a tough one! I think just basic repetition might help.

The LH here was easy for me to learn. It's a descending scale starting from E; I just have to remember the A# (since we're transitioning into B major here). I don't learn well just from repetition; I need some pattern or understanding as the foundation for my remembering.

Quote:

Let's look at the RH. We start with G# and B over the octave E in LH. Hmm, how can we associate G# and B with E?

Rhetorical question, I hope! It's an E major chord.

Quote:

The melody steps up in RH from B to E using fingers 2, 3, 4 and 5. The second chord uses the lowest note in that phrase, F#, so 1 must be used for that and the chord thus uses 1-2-3. We must practise the move from the first to the second chord. The rest seems straightforward. Let's work on just that handful. Four chords in RH, four in LH, slightly offset. Take plenty of time to think where each finger's going to go before you make the change.

I'm using the fingering from the Kullak edition published by Peters, which is slightly different, but I don't find it difficult. Slightly harder to remember the notes, but they make patterns on the keyboard which help me.

Quote:

At the end of each repetition, or more pertinently before each subsequent repetition, play it mentally, consider how you want it to sound and play the section with your hands in your lap. Then play it slow enough to guarantee the right notes and consider how you did at the end. Do about seven to ten reps each day, thinking between each one, and getting them right. Then let sleep do its work. When you're comfortable with it, it may be a few minutes or a few days, look at the next section.

The idea of thinking out the fingering and motions without my hands on the keyboard is novel to me. I should do more of playing extremely slowly for sure, being sure I've positioned my fingers correctly before playing each chord. The suggestion for number of repetitions is interesting; I haven't been keeping track. I haven't really got a track record to give personal testimony about the power of sleep, but I did consciously think last night at the end of my practicing (including other pieces) when I was considering going back and running through what I'd worked on, I thought "No, you've been through it, the next step is to sleep on it."

Quote:

The second half of the phrase continues the octaves descending in LH. It shouldn't take long to get these into your head.

Yes, this was my experience.

Quote:

Apart from the last note every chord has 1-2 on C# and E leaving 3, 4 and 5 for the melody. Play and sing, 'we're going home tomorrow'. Add the LH when you're ready.

Pretty much how I thought of it. I also identified it as an F#7, which helped me remember the F# A# C# sequence, and then B is an intermediate note before the final A#.

Quote:

When you're ready to join these two sections add the crescendo at the same time. You'll need to decide how loud you're going to get, and how quickly, but you have a sforzando on the next chord. You can do this before you go on or when you've done all the other sections but do it before you start practising these bars every day. Consider that if you're not using the right dynamics, then you're practising the wrong ones!

Ah, dynamics. Must. Add. Soon. I still conceptualize this as "without dynamics" vs. "added dynamics", rather than "wrong" vs. "right.", so I don't yet really get "without dynamics" as ingraining the wrong thing. Maybe with time I will start to feel the truth of what you say more viscerally. Nevertheless, I will add dynamics tonight.

I have fingering memorized through m. 14, and have mm. 15-17 in progress. From what you say I should take 15-17 in smaller chunks (although I have been building the phrase up in small pieces). Will try that tonight, and also practice it in phrases (plus the first chord of the next phrase) layering in more things beyond fingering on the phrases up to m. 14).

Quote:

If you put them together before the new year you're ahead of the schedule I gave you earlier. Practise this bit each day at the start of your practise session (or before you start on the rest of this piece). When you can play it from memory for five consecutive days before you reach for the score you can start practising it at the weekend only.

I haven't been working to schedule because I don't trust that I can memorize any particular bit in any pre-specified amount of time. I have had in mind that I'd like all the fingering memorized by the new year.

Do the five consecutive days have to elapse before starting on a new phrase?

I don't trust my memory enough to leave pieces so freshly memorized to weekends only. Also it seems as if, once I have the notes memorized that I would want to start working on the other layers like dynamics and voicing. Or are dynamics and voicing part of what you're working on on those five days?

I'm thinking of what keystring said about only being able to work on one thing at a time. I hadn't felt that way before in a piece (my problems are more finding the notes fast enough), but in this piece I definitely feel that my brain is completely occupied just remembering the notes so far.

I did find that I could finally practice the sforzandos in mm. 13-14, but that is new, to have enough brain cycles to alot to that. However I guess I'll start a five day cycle layering in voicing and dynamics etc. much sooner, on my mm. 15-17, and find out what that is like.

Oh, I didn't mention about the words for rhythms. I just count out the rhythms, 1 e and a, etc., and then practicing humming the piece to check out my continuous knowledge of the rhythms and the notes.

What would using the words add? Rhythm is one of my strong points, I think. Looking at or playing a rhythm I'm almost never unsure of how it should go (polyrhythms excepted, and I'll try words the next time I meet one of them).

I don't learn well just from repetition; I need some pattern or understanding as the foundation for my remembering.

+1I always try to be quick to memorize as my reading is so poor, or at least extremely slow and not sufficient for playing much of the classical I am learning now once up to full tempo. Learning classical from a score is brand new to me as of last few months. What I am finding though, for memorization, it is just like you say here. Having a pattern to follow, or if not an obvious pattern, a method you can make up that will help you remember, is key.

Like ... oh yeah, in this section, I just move everything in my LH hand up one inversion, and then the RH plays the chord again in this inversion, and this same logic also applies in Mx, Mx, Mx.

A pattern or methodology for remembering what needs to happen next, always seems to emerge. Not immediately, but with more familiarity, it always seems to.

This involves memorising but it's not so much how to memorise as how to tackle a piece.

Originally Posted By: PianoStudent88

To me the hardest section is mm. 14-17 (perhaps because neither of my sources gives much fingering here, so it took me a while to work out fingering), and the RH chord transition from m. 21 to m. 22.

In my earlier breakdown I lumped M11-17 together though it's not important BUT the climax of the piece is in M13 and this passage builds up to it. It doesn't matter as much what you do after the climax but the climax itself is only as strong as the build up to it. This section may not, then, be the hardest but it IS the most important.

Originally Posted By: PianoStudent88

The LH here was easy for me to learn...Rhetorical question, I hope! It's an E major chord.

I confess to being very much tongue in cheek at this point. I don't think your memory is as bad as you think it is.

If you're happy with the fingering you have that's great. I usually disregard it and work out my own as part of the process.

Originally Posted By: PianoStudent88

The suggestion for number of repetitions is interesting; I haven't been keeping track.

There is a lot of psychological research in this area. you need at least 7 correct repetitions for it to start filtering into long term memory. After about 20 the payback is on a reducing scale. It's best to measure your progress at varying numbers of repetitions but the average is 7-10. I do about half a dozen but I always do mental practise between repetitions for four reasons.

Firstly, mental repetitions grow the brain connections exactly the same as physical practise but without the wrong notes (I never hit the wrong notes while playing mentally unless I've learnt the wrong ones).

Secondly, it doubles the number of repetitions.

Thirdly it sets me up for mental practise away from the piano.

And fourthly, it makes my repetitions meaningful instead or just bead counting. Each attempt is trying to improve the last with a specific target.

The brain grows the connections just like muscle growth - not while we exercise, but while we sleep.

Originally Posted By: PianoStudent88

Ah, dynamics. Must. Add. Soon. I still conceptualize this as "without dynamics" vs. "added dynamics", rather than "wrong" vs. "right.", so I don't yet really get "without dynamics" as ingraining the wrong thing. Maybe with time I will start to feel the truth of what you say more viscerally. Nevertheless, I will add dynamics tonight.

Here's the thing. When you play a note it has a dynamic attribute. It may be right for the music or it may be wrong. But it isn't without dynamics. Now you needn't concern yourself with learning the dynamics as you go but as soon as you free up some reserve of brain power and thinking beyond 'the right notes at the right time' you will either practise whatever dynamics you end up with or you can decide how you want them.

I tend to learn a piece as sound before I start sitting at the piano so I already know how I want it to go. Not only is it easy and natural to put the right dynamics in from the start but it's difficult to accept the default dynamics when they're not what I'm expecting. It can be very difficult to add them or correct them later when you're already familiar with playing the piece with 'default' dynamics.

Originally Posted By: PianoStudent88

I have fingering memorized through m. 14, and have mm. 15-17 in progress. From what you say I should take 15-17 in smaller chunks

I would have suggested the 11 note phrase from the climax M13.3 to 15.1 as one part, 15.1 to 16.1 as a second. M15 and M16 are the same but for the first note.

Originally Posted By: PianoStudent88

I haven't been working to schedule because I don't trust that I can memorize any particular bit in any pre-specified amount of time. I have had in mind that I'd like all the fingering memorized by the new year.

Again, this isn't about memorising, per se, but learning a piece, memorising or not.

Originally Posted By: PianoStudent88

Do the five consecutive days have to elapse before starting on a new phrase?

Absolutely not. Start your practise on this piece by playing any sections you've already memorised in the order you learnt them but not sequentially through the piece without breaks. Go slow and accept no wrong notes at this stage. Go back and fix them first.

When you've memorised a section long enough that you never look at the score when you're playing it, stop playing it every day. You know it well enough that that you can just give it a couple of slow run throughs on Saturday and Sunday.

The next thing I would expect you to do is play through the whole piece once in your head and once on the keys at the beginning of your session. HT where you can (as long as you're not playing wrong notes), HS where you can't and skip sections where you can't even play HS yet. These are the technical difficulties that should be fixed before you start learning the piece proper.

After your recap and play through start on that days section.

Originally Posted By: PianoStudent88

I'm thinking of what keystring said about only being able to work on one thing at a time.

She makes a good point. There's no point overloading the brain. I know beforehand what dynamics and phrasing I want but the point is not to begin repetitive practise of just the notes once you've learnt them (without dynamics - and see above).

Originally Posted By: PianoStudent88

but in this piece I definitely feel that my brain is completely occupied just remembering the notes so far.

Then continue to use the score. If you're working on a short enough section you may well find you don't need the score. Intending not to use it encourages closer investigation finding patterns, aides-memoires, and such but feeling pressured to not use it isn't making the best use of your time and won't help your memory. I follow the score until I just can't be bothered looking at it. But sometimes I have to force myself to not look back again later. It's different for different folks. There are passages that have taken me unearthly amounts of time and effort to memorise and still thwart me and others I've never had to go back to the score on (even after my fifteen year break).

What would using the words add? Rhythm is one of my strong points, I think. Looking at or playing a rhythm I'm almost never unsure of how it should go (polyrhythms excepted, and I'll try words the next time I meet one of them).

If rhythm is your strong point this may have less practical application for you.

The difference between words and counting is that counting has a regular pulse that occurs whether or not a note sounds but words occur only when a note sounds; they show up the rhythm. This is handy in polyrhythms, in fact I started using words when I started dealing with 4 against 3 rhythms.

A sentence like 'pass the golden butter' shows up the resulting rhythm of 4 vs 3 so it can be practised slowly and without rhythm but when the the notes are learnt you can start playing them the way the sentence is metred then bring it up to speed.

When the rhythmic pattern is unusual words give it a 'handle' that you can latch on to without having to read the note values so finely. It can be awkward where notes sounded together appear offset beceause the upstems of the lower notes do not coincide with the downstems of the upper notes or there's a variety of note values and dotted notes (have a quick look at Bach's Prelude & Fugue VII, Book I, for example). When remembering the notes is hard enough and remembering the rhythm is extra, the words help.

A specific example, 8 against 3 in Chopin's C# minor waltz, Op. 64 no. 2, from the last beat of M83 to the second beat of M85 I might use 'and JUST so that NOthing gets beTWEEN the two FAMily ties' (I use a different phrase but it's vulgar so it's easier to remember!).

I would like to take a look at the harmony (Chords) in this work. However, this is mainly for my interest as I know not everyone will be interested, if they are not working on it.

So, OK to go ahead with this? Or better to wait until we get back to more of a group effort with the Haydn Hob.

In starting (very briefly) to look at the chords, they do not appear to be complex. At least not yet. What is complex though is how they are broken into various inversions and rhythm patterns alternating between RH LH.

There is no question that this piece is going to be a lot of work for me. I believe I heard you mention somewhere else, Richard, that very little is insurmountable with enough practice. I have every confidence of conquering this piece. The challenge will be in having it in presentable shape, once the recital submissions roll around.

Figuring out the chords and trying to name them correctly is fun for me. I am dedicating today to a lot of practice on this piece and will be looking at the chords anyway. But, do not want to hijack the thread if there are other things we should rather focus towards.

If you're analysing the piece then posting the results will be welcomed. There's an academic interest in analysing music (especially harmonic analysis) but there are practical benefits in understanding the piece, knowing it's hidden patterns and idiosyncracies. All the things that make you want to learn it in the first place. It makes it all so much easier to get to know it, enjoy listening to it, get to know the composer, memorising and performing the piece.

It moves to a place that's beyond liking or not liking, somehwere much deeper. Seeing what you do with the analysis of your piece helps us all do more with our own pieces.

That's one of the main benefits of the thread.

A propos the "Haydn Hob.", just in case anyone is in any doubt, Haydn's works were catalogued by a Dutchman named Anthony von Hoboken just as Köchel did for Mozart, Otto Deutsch did for Schubert and Kirkpatrick (K. or Kp.), Longo (L.) and Pestelli (P.) did for Scarlatti. Later composers works can be identified by their published opus numbers.

If you're analysing the piece then posting the results will be welcomed. There's an academic interest in analysing music (especially harmonic analysis) but there are practical benefits in understanding the piece, knowing it's hidden patterns and idiosyncracies. ... It makes it all so much easier to get to know it, enjoy listening to it, get to know the composer, memorising and performing the piece.... That's one of the main benefits of the thread.

I'm all over it then, right after breakfast .

Originally Posted By: zrtf90

A propos the "Haydn Hob.", just in case anyone is in any doubt, Haydn's works were catalogued by a Dutchman named Anthony von Hoboken just as Köchel did for Mozart, Otto Deutsch did for Schubert and Kirkpatrick (K. or Kp.), Longo (L.) and Pestelli (P.) did for Scarlatti. Later composers works can be identified by their published opus numbers.

The first chord is diminished (A#dim/G, but as we are going to F#7 next, I would rather call this F#7-9 and then just drop the flat 9.) Plus, I love the name

M4- Em, Am M5- B, B7, Em

I was thinking of skipping down and starting at M12 next, as this is what I am looking at next, in my practice. M6-M11 is almost a repeat of the A section anyway, so will be similar to above. I'll come back to later if OK.

EDIT: Removed Bsus4 in M5, it is actually a +5 but just passing on the way back to Em.

Edited by Greener (12/22/1212:58 PM)Edit Reason: took out the Bsus4 in M5

C over B of course is Cmaj7, but the C major chord moves through different inversions, some of which do not include the major 7 or even the root. So, just calling it a C over B. This happens a lot and I am not trying to name every possible inversion variance. To do so would get crazy .

M3 beat 1: G, C#, E and A# making G dim.If this were a rootless dominant 7 flat 9 the root would be a major third below G, C#, E or A# making it D#, A, C or F#. The second beat is F#, C#, E and A. This is F#7 and it's dominant 7th would be C#7. So beat 1 is not a dominant chord (a rootless C#7-9) but a normal diminished chord used to transition to F# on its way to a normal B7 (for me the E is a melody note not part of the harmony, it's just not on my wavelength here) that resolves to Em in M4.

Now, at long last, we can see the difference between a normal diminished chord and a rootless dominant 7-9 in a real situation. Most of the diminished chords we've been seeing have been functioning as dominants. This one isn't.

M15 C/B

Let's look just at the left hand here and just at the beat notes. I see E minor still over the B root but on Beat 2 there's a distinct change to C major and the B returning off the beat so I get Em, C which repeats on beats three and four.

Disregarding the RH melody notes the E and G in RH concur. This confirms Em and C for me or Em/B and C maj7 to be pedantic.

I don't think there's an A major here. The C# in the melody is cancelled on the next (melody) note.

There's a lot to take in here, Jeff, but I think you'll be better off concentrating on just the LH first, then add the RH accompaniment and only add the melody if it doesn't conflict with a simple chord name.

You'll need to analyse more of Mendelssohn's work before you really get a handle on him and he won't seem as difficult then.

It may seem that whatever you do, real world music throws a spanner in your works but it is so much better to learn it this way than get to the end of a theoretical treatise on harmony and then be dumped into real world music. You'll know when you're making real progress, not because you're near the end of the course, but because you're coming across fewer exceptions in the real world.

M3 beat 1: G, C#, E and A# making G dim.If this were a rootless dominant 7 flat 9 the root would be a major third below G, C#, E or A# making it D#, A, C or F#. The second beat is F#, C#, E and A. This is F#7 and it's dominant 7th would be C#7. So beat 1 is not a dominant chord (a rootless C#7-9) but a normal diminished chord used to transition to F# on its way to a normal B7

OK, makes sense. I have a better idea now (we'll see I guess) of when to choose a rootless -9 (dominant 7th) vs. diminished. In choosing the diminished name though, I would have been more inclined to choose A# diminished, in keeping with proper naming convention of a diminished. But, I see how this would not fit with the progression. Can we/should I weigh progression above naming structure of a diminished chord? This is where I am getting a bit confused I suppose.

Originally Posted By: zrtf90

M15 C/B

Let's look just at the left hand here and just at the beat notes. I see E minor still over the B root but on Beat 2 there's a distinct change to C major and the B returning off the beat so I get Em, C which repeats on beats three and four.

Disregarding the RH melody notes the E and G in RH concur. This confirms Em and C for me or Em/B and C maj7 to be pedantic.

Ah, yes. How could I see a Cmaj7 anymore without realizing it is really an Em in disguise . In this case though em and cmaj7 alternating. Check

Diminished naming convention was thrashed out a while ago now so let's recap.

Correct spelling uses alternate note names. Very precise but not always practical. We typically name diminished chords by the lowest note and never need to bother with slash notation.

They are typically used mostly for their ability to move to chords not usually close together (because they can resolve from any one of their four notes) but we have mostly seen them thus far being used as (rootless) dominant substitutes built on the seventh of the scale.

I agree with the A minor now, but could we not have used the E7-9 (vs. G#dim) in this instance (dominant 7 moving to A?)

Yes, we could. I had a different chord on beat two last night but not this morning.

We could but we needn't. The chord is G# dim BUT it can be functioning as a rootless E dominant 7-9 and therefore we've been choosing that naming convention. Both are correct. One is the chord and the other is its function.

Diminished naming convention was thrashed out a while ago now so let's recap.

Correct spelling uses alternate note names. Very precise but not always practical. We typically name diminished chords by the lowest note and never need to bother with slash notation.

They are typically used mostly for their ability to move to chords not usually close together (because they can resolve from any one of their four notes) but we have mostly seen them thus far being used as (rootless) dominant substitutes built on the seventh of the scale.

I'll be testing you on this NEXT Christmas!

Beautiful. Yes, I think I may have it by next Christmas too. I have earmarked this for future diminishes.

Gots to run now ... time to start my Christmas shopping . Chopin, Schubert, Mendelssohn and Haydn will have to take a back seat today, unfortunately. But not for long.

Edit: Oh yeah, before I forget ... if you're still looking for ideas for me, I would be quite keen on a new piano. No preference, for brand or model. I trust everyone's judgement.

Now I'm working on voicing, and it involves carefully going through the piece all over again phrase by phrase and chord by chord, but I like this because now I know all the notes and fingerings and I enjoy this kind of careful detailed work. I'm working in final decisions about pedaling at the same time, and as I get the voicing down, following it up with more careful attention to the dynamics.

The piece is in XAA'BAA''X format; the various As are 4 measure phrases all sharing the same last two measures. X is a 3 measure introduction and coda. B is a 6 measure phrase. The piece is in E major, except for B which is in the dominant, B major.

The various A and B phrases are linked rhythmically. For example, they all start on the third beat: quarter, dotted eighth, sixteenth.

More simply, one could say Mendelssohn 30/3 is in ternary form, with an added and matching intro and coda: xABA'x, where the A and A' are 8 measures each with a high degree of internal unity and repetition.

Response #2: I knew you could do it! Didn't I just say that that your memory is better than you think? Now we can look forward to a virtuosic display with an improvised 21 bar cadenza before the final coda.